We here at CGD tend to be critical of international agencies like WHO or the UNDP for establishing targets or guidelines without sufficient consideration of the impacts, for good and ill, of those guidelines in the affected countries. Such guidelines often apply standards more appropriate to rich countries and then pressure poor countries to behave as if they were rich.
CGD Policy Blogs
Controlling the HIV/AIDS Epidemic by 2020 Will Not End US Responsibilities in Severely Affected Countries
Although the Trump administration has pivoted away from global leadership in many foreign policy arenas, Secretary Tillerson’s September 19 announcement of administration support for PEPFAR’s newly released 2017 strategy is reassuring. In addition to affirming the administration’s commitment to continue PEPFAR support in all 50 previously designated PEPFAR countries, the secretary announced the intention to “accelerate progress toward controlling the pandemic in a subset of 13 countries, which represent the most vulnerable communities to HIV/AIDS and have the potential to achieve control by 2020.”
The 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was a disturbing demonstration of the inadequacy of international institutions to assist the affected peoples or learn how to better treat and prevent their illness. Experts on a CGD panel discussed their experiences working on crisis response during the Ebola outbreak—and how we can do better.
Bridging the Gap Between Health and Finance: How Can Finance Ministries Support a Sustainable HIV Response?
At our recent event, “How Can Finance Ministries Support a Sustainable HIV Response?” representatives from PEPFAR and the US Department of Treasury came together to discuss an innovative partnership between them and with finance ministries around the world. The partnership aims to improve the coordination and productivity of resources devoted to combatting HIV/AIDS in low- and middle-income countries, and to strengthen the long-term feasibility of these efforts.
Without PEPFAR, it’s safe to say that almost all of Africa would be stuck near zero HIV treatment coverage. Instead, 49 percent of HIV-infected people were receiving life-saving treatment in 2014, rising to 56 percent by 2015, and the top-performing countries are still gaining ground. This dramatic increase in treatment coverage is a prodigious achievement—and the United States deserves most of the credit. But despite these accomplishments, much more work is needed to reach the end of the epidemic.
How Could the Global Fund Get More Health for Its Money? Lessons from the Economics of Contract Theory
Our recent report on next generation financing models looks at how global health donors, specifically the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, can enhance the health impact of grants by tying grant payments to achieved and verified results. Yet there are several ways to condition payments on performance, and some ways would likely work better than others. Can economic theory suggest specific features of contract designs which would generate more health for the money?
Those who follow CGD will be familiar with our branded meme: “Cash on Delivery” aid, or COD. Many are enthusiastic about COD’s potential to revolutionize aid effectiveness. Yet within some global development organizations, leadership and staff alike express common concerns: is COD practical in the real world? Have you thought about this problem, or that constraint? How would this work in the context of our organization? And if we decided to move forward, how would we design a COD grant?
UNAIDS and African AIDS Programs Agree That Effective HIV Prevention Depends on Location, Location, Location
As it does every year at this time, UNAIDS has released its World AIDS Day report. With five out of seven HIV infected people living in Africa, it is appropriate that the report is released here at the International Conference on AIDS and STIs in Africa (ICASA) in Harare, Zimbabwe.
You’ve probably already heard about the pharma outrage du jour. In short: start-up Turing Pharmaceuticals, led by combative ex-hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, recently acquired Daraprim, a 60+ year-old drug to treat a parasitic infection called toxoplasmosis – the only available treatment for this rare infection – which can become deadly for HIV+ individuals and others with weakened immune systems. Turing then promptly raised the price by more than 5000%, from $13.50 to $750 per tablet, such that a single individual’s treatment can now cost up to $634,000.